Interesting Back and Forth

Gibroney: You are absolutely correct when you say that the collapse of WTC7 was probably the result of controlled demolition. The CIA, Department of Defense, and Secret Service (plus the IRS) all shared office space on the 25th floor. Some sites around the world which contain sensitive information are internally wired for remote demolition from the outset in order to 'plug leaks', so to speak. If the building had not been demolished, individuals with no security clearance would gain access to it in the aftermath.

The claim of lack of evidence pointing to Al-Qaeda is simply false, as is the theory of 'multiple bin Ladens' on video. Al-Qaeda was directly implicated in the 1993 WTC attacks and were known to have been planning to try again. It should be noted that at the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the structural deficiencies of the twin towers were used as evidence by the prosecution (though the 9/11 Commission omits these facts, see my recommendation below), plus bin Laden has admitted it himself in the videos you claim are fake, even though many individuals in the intelligence communities of the world are trained to identify these specific types of fakery. Such dissimilation would be obvious to all of the world's other agencies and governments; are they in on the conspiracy too?

Also, you claim that:

"If all of this evidence...is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation."

Unfortunately, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because a government is incompetent in one instance, that it can be RELIABLY expected to be incompetent in others. Having said this (and after doing a bit more reading) I must retract the statement I made in my previous message about the administration's mishandling of Iraq etc. being indicative of incompetence on 9/11. The pattern is interesting, but admittedly ultimately inconclusive. In addition, I am not the only one propagating the meme that "the theory IS the conspiracy". Noam Chomsky, for one, has said that it is not unlikely.

By the way, I think that your theory that Chomsky is self-censoring to protect his family is a pretty far stretch.

I am not claiming that disinformation (which needn't be elaborate) is the ONLY source of the 9/11 truth movement. Much earnest grassroots activism has sprung up, because it's obvious that the government ACTUALLY HAS something to hide. However, a tried and true method of thought control is restricting the scope of a debate, and encouraging vigorous discussion within that framework. And as any good liar knows, the best lies are the ones that contain as much truth as possible.

I should add that I don't pretend to be able to PROVE that there is an organized campaign for disinformation; it's just an extremely well-supported theory, given that powerful individuals in many sectors of government, including the FBI and CIA, have means, motive, and opportunity, three things they crucially DON'T have in the case of deliberate conspiracy; see my previous message for remarks about the utter impracticality of such plans versus the broad practicality of disinformation.

For more evidence for incompetence, including Al-Qaeda infiltration of the US military, I suggest the work of journalist Peter Lance, particularly his book "Triple Cross". He describes the ineptitude across the four most recent previous administrations as "the biggest intelligence failure since the Trojan horse."

The Gibroney Hunter: Your theory to explain Bldg 7 is very interesting. It's my first time hearing of it. Are you aware of what specific buildings are wired for this, or is that perhaps not public information? I'll look into this more deeply when I have enough time.

I acknowledge that my view of the OBL video evidence is only my opinion, since I'm in no position to prove or disprove that. There are, however, some serious problems, not only with the video but with the way in which it has been presented by our media. The C.I.A translation of the audio has been contradicted by a German team of translators who contend that OBL (or someone resembling him) simply acknowledges approval or pleasure regarding the attacks, but doesn't acknowledge responsibility. Also, the individual in the video is seen wearing a gold wristwatch, which is a clear violation of muslim norms, at least among fundamentalist jihadists. I mention this fact not because it relates to the identity of the man in the video, but because it's indicative of the overall phoniness of it. Again, there is no reason to state conclusively that the man in the "Smoking Gun" video is a double, but it is faulty to reject this idea a priori, as there is a long historical precedent for this, especially among leaders who are at high risk of assassination. Saddam Hussein was notorious for his impressive cast of body doubles.

I disagree that my statement is a non-sequiter. Although it may appear so on it's face, a deeper examination shows that rather than simply presenting one instance and then another unrelated one, we are, in fact, proposing the same scenario. I'm proposing that the federal government lied about the cause of the collapse of the WTC complex, and then engaged in a massive disinformation campaign in order to control and manipulate public opinion. You're also proposing that the federal gov. lied about the collapse (blg 7 being wired for demolition) and then engaged in disinformation regarding those collapses. Therefore we are both proposing the same thing (albeit with very different proposed motives). The fundamental difference, however, is that my view has an extensive body of evidence to support it, and yours, to my knowledge, doesn't have a comparable amount of supportive evidence. You mention means, motive, and opportunity, which are indeed an important part of any investigation. However, these three characteristics amount to pretty much nothing, without any evidence to go with them, especially when there are alternative explanations which do, in fact, incorporate a large amount of verifiable facts (like witness accounts of explosions throughout the buildings and basement, nano-thermite, etc..). Essentially, the question is not "can you prove the 'theory is the conspiracy' idea", but "can you even present a compelling fact-based argument for it?" The issue of fire insulation (or lack thereof), while certainly relevant, does not adequately explain how jet fuel, which burns at 1000 C at maximum, could possibly have compromised the steel (1,300 minimum melting temp) so extensively in such a short period of time.

I certainly agree with you that Al Qaeda did play an important role in the '93 and '01 attacks, however I think a much more important and telling aspect of the attacks is the C.I.A fingerprints left all over, which Chomsky mentions in the video. To be clear, when I speak of a lack of evidence linking Al Qaeda to the attacks, I'm referring to the funding, and much of the planning and execution stages of the attack, for which there is indeed a lack of evidence (at least by law enforcement standards), and not to the obvious evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and his 19 patsies to American intelligence.

I'm not sure I follow your statements about intelligence agencies around the world presumably being eager to expose one another's dirty laundry. Surely there is much that is common knowledge within certain intelligence circles, and just as surely, any outing of these secrets would result in an "intelligence war" sort of scenario. In other words, you seem to be assuming that people in glass houses would be eager to throw stones, but precisely the opposite is true, especially in the intelligence field, which is essentially built on secrets.

The short answer to "are they in on the conspiracy too?" is yes. This becomes clear when one considers that the same group of international bankers and wealthy elite control groups like MI6, the C.I.A, and Mossad, organizations which on their surface appear to be functioning entirely independent of one another. Obviously this isn't to say that everyone within these groups would have to have been aware of such involvement. Intelligence organizations are highly compartmentalized, and this, in my opinion, is adequate to theoretically explain how a surprisingly small group of criminals are able to govern them. Unflinchingly obeying and never questioning orders from above is precisely the behavior that individuals are rewarded for. The assertion that "the government can't keep a secret that big" is a common argument posed by people who do not accept that 9/11 was an inside job. One good historical example that counters this thinking is the Manhattan Project. For roughly a decade, 48,000 Americans were involved in it's undertaking, and not until it was confirmed that we had the bomb and the Germans didn't, did anyone at all start talking. Also, it's important to note that every year, the list of 9/11 whistleblowers grows, so perhaps we're in agreement after all, that the federal government indeed cannot keep a secret this big.

This is getting a bit wordy, so I'll conclude by noting my disagreement that Chomsky being threatened is a stretch. I suggest the film "The Insider" to shed light on how easy it is for very powerful people to level threats at people of normal means. The film is a true account of a tobacco corporation making a whisleblower's life miserable. Tobacco corporations are relatively low on the totem pole, so to speak. One can imagine how miserable the globalist elite are capable of making one's life. Again, no evidence. But I disagree that the idea in itself is a stretch from reality. In reality, perhaps a threat wouldn't even be necessary, considering how well-informed and intelligent Chomsky is.

Thanks for reading, god bless.